An Unusually Interesting Selectmen’s Meeting
by Jen Shenk
November 23, 2009
Nick Hay’s inspection sticker problem, delinquent property taxes, lighting of a “holiday” tree, and paying police overtime on time.
I attended the Board of Selectmen meeting on Monday, November 23 to show support for our new Selectman, Laila Michaud. I thought it was a respectful thing to do, in addition to the fact that I was happy to get an evening out. Jay came along, too--we had a babysitter and I told him that the Selectmen’s meeting immediately before a Special Town Meeting is usually interesting because they discuss the articles that are on the warrant. Well, I wasn’t lying—the meeting certainly was interesting, although it had little to do with the upcoming Special Town Meeting.
Nick Hay’s Inspection Sticker Problem
The meeting started out with Chairman Nick Hay reading a prepared statement reflecting on the charges brought against him by the Westminster Police Department for allegedly affixing an illegal inspection sticker on his vehicle, which is a felony in Massachusetts. In the past I may have minimized the importance of that charge--come on, it's just an inspection sticker …except that we recently had to sell a very nice car for parts that was otherwise in beautiful condition. The kiss of death was that it needed almost $4,000 worth of emissions work to pass inspection. We are law abiding about that sort of thing, mainly because it’s not worth the risk of getting caught.
If the charges are accurate, I question the judgment of anyone taking that risk while in the spotlight as an elected official. I just don’t understand it. The question many of us would probably like to ask, but which I’m sure cannot be answered pending upcoming legal proceedings, is “what the heck were you thinking?”
Written statement provided and read by Nick Hay
As some of you may know, I recently received a motor vehicle citation issued by the town of Westminster Police Department. I sincerely apologize to all for my lack of judgment, and I assure you that I take this matter very seriously. Notwithstanding my personal situation, I intend to keep focused on the operations of the town and my duties as a Selectman. Over the past three years I have worked very hard and diligently to make Westminster a great place to live.
We currently face record unemployment in town, as well as reduced funding from the state. On December 1st, we have scheduled a Town Meeting to adjust the town budget. My fellow Selectmen and I have been working to keep our commitment to the town residents, as well as to the town employees that serve our town so well. Please work with me as we focus on the economy, the budget, improving the conditions for our seniors, working towards better youth facilities, and making Westminster a desirable place to live in the future. I'm very grateful for your continued personal support.
Senior Select Board member and current Vice-chairman John Fairbanks commented on Nick’s statement, beginning by saying he’d been thinking of almost nothing else since he first heard about the charges, and he’d been pondering how to handle it. He said he saw there being three choices—ignore the issue and sweep it under the rug, request Nick’s resignation, or a middle ground, where Nick stays on the Board of Selectmen, but relinquishes the chairmanship.
John then made a motion that Nick Hay be removed as the Chairman, and that he, John Fairbanks, would step in as Chairman with newcomer Laila Michaud becoming Vice-chairman and clerk. Nick Hay would stay on the Board of Selectmen, just not as Chairman. This is where things got especially strange to me: The motion was not seconded—some research was necessary to find out how this came about, as at first glance it seems you wouldn’t make a motion like that without knowing if you’d get a second. There was a good reason however. John had not spoken to Laila about his motion because he followed the rules applying to our Selectmen, which is that they cannot meet outside of the scheduled meetings to discuss Selectmen business because it is illegal. It’s illegal because when you only have three Selectmen, any two meeting together constitutes a quorum, violating the Open Meeting Law.
Consequently, Laila Michaud, the new Selectman at the very beginning of her very first meeting, was thrust immediately into an unexpected, complicated and emotional situation without the time to get acclimated to her new role. With three Selectmen, and one being the subject of the motion, it was up to Laila to second the motion, and she did not do so. She was perhaps caught at least somewhat off guard by the situation, then decided not to second the motion, giving as the reason a wish to put this behind us and move on. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I think that a better way to put it behind us would have been to second the motion for purposes of discussion, to get input and see how people felt. The motion then might have been defeated anyway, but as it actually happened, John made a motion, no one seconded it, and a minute later the motion died, leaving behind an awkward feeling that it hadn’t really been dealt with, and at least some of us unsure what had happened.
Selectmen’s Meetings are different from Town Meetings, but having attended every Town Meeting and Special Town Meeting since I moved to Westminster 12 years ago, I pride myself in voting for and against articles based on research I've done and what I hear in the meetings. However, at the point during the Selectmen's meeting when I thought “now there will be some discussion”, because that's how it works at Town Meeting (once a motion is seconded), absolutely nothing happened. Instead of discussion on the issue, Nick Hay said. ‘Hearing no second…’ and Town Coordinator Karen Murphy, when asked, said that the motion dies in the absence of a second.
I mean no disrespect to Nick Hay and think he’s a great guy, but he allegedly made an error in judgment that happens to be a felony, and there was no discussion. I don’t know what the outcome would have been had it been discussed—perhaps the outcome would have been the same, but at least people's feelings could have been expressed, and that didn’t happen.
At this point our hope is that this issue is in fact put to rest, which is primarily up to Nick Hay. There must be an acceptance on his part, not only as he expressed in a written, prepared statement, but through deeds and comments. If the charges are true, this was a major error in judgment and the police were doing their job properly and as they should have. Statements off the record should be the along the same lines as those expressed in the prepared statement. If it turns out otherwise, then there is an election coming up soon where we will all get to express our opinion.
A Stimulus Check from the Government
Moving right along, Energy Committee representative Joe Macchia discussed a renewable energy grant, where the town can receive a $4,500 rebate thanks to certain electricity customers in Westminster choosing to purchase electricity generated only from renewable resources (same electricity over the same lines, but the payments allocated to a different provider). Some amount of money, based on a percentage of what a town spends on renewable energy, is set aside for towns, and given back as a rebate check.
Advisory Board member Ken Burstall questioned if individual homeowners could benefit from this rebate. Joe Macchia said no, this rebate is only for the town's use and can only be spent for certain, very specific items. Of note is that choosing to purchase energy from a renewable source is more expensive for the homeowner, although for a good cause, and the $4,500 check Westminster received is very tightly controlled regarding how it can be spent. An example given was that some portion of this money can be spent on library books, but only on certain books dealing specifically with renewable energy or something very similar. We cannot spend the money on a bestseller, for instance, or even on a book about saving the rainforest—it has to be about renewable energy. We could also purchase pamphlets for the town, but they too have to be about renewable energy rather than say, in general about using less energy. The Selectmen voted to accept the check.
"The Tree On the Common With The Lights On It"
Next up--the Christmas Tree Lighting. Easy enough. Having attended the last Westminster Elementary School PTO meeting, I knew that Heather Leger would be at the Selectmen's meeting requesting permission to use Academy Hill for the Westminster PTO’s annual “Christmas tree” lighting. Heather's only remaining question was who will pay the electric bill associated with the tree lighting. The problem with this agenda item began when Select board Chair Nick Hay said “Christmas”, and then correcting himself, saying, “ I mean ‘holiday’ tree”. I do identify a spruce tree with lights and decorations on it as a Christmas tree, but that's something I always let slide, figuring my friends who insist on saying ‘holiday tree’ are just trying to be politically correct.
Peter Normandin, not of the same ‘let it slide’ mentality or taking the same approach, asked Nick Hay why he felt the need to call it a holiday tree instead of a Christmas tree, and went on at some length about how it annoyed him. Nick gave some sort of bland answer, and it appeared this issue was nearly resolved.
John Fairbanks said he had no problem with the Town paying the electric bill for the Christmas (or holiday) tree, but just when we thought this issue was resolved, Barbara Friedman from the audience questioned the use of Town money to fund a religious celebration. Heather Leger pointed out that they had a private donation, from the Ryan Jones Heart of a Hero Foundation, which was funding everything but the electricity to turn on the lights, which tends to be a minimal expense. The Foundation and the ROTC Students from Monty Tech had donated thousands of dollars in labor to permanently place wiring underground on Academy Hill at no expense to the Town. Barbara Friedman reiterated her stance that the Town shouldn’t pay anything towards a religious holiday that not everyone celebrated, at which point the meeting became somewhat emotional and Advisory Board member Walter C. ‘Bud’ Taylor said he would personally reimburse the town for electricity costs associated with lighting the holiday tree.
Someone in the audience then joked that we should use a whole lot of lights and leave them on 24 hours since Bud was picking up the tab, and that “lightened” the mood, and it was off to the next topic.
Property Tax Delinquencies
Melody Gallant, Westminster’s Town Treasurer and Tax Collector spoke next about property owners who are not paying their taxes. She indicated that her current collection rate is 97%. According to her, this is a slight increase in the delinquency rate. Melody said that although homeowner delinquencies have risen slightly, the vast majority of the increase is due to developers, who own multiple properties in town, not paying their taxes on those properties--In this tough economy, developers are paying their lien holders first.
In 2006, Westminster placed five liens on properties for unpaid taxes. In 2007 the number was 44 liens. In 2008, 71 liens were placed on parcels. This does not represent a huge increase in residential delinquencies according to Melody Gallant. Rather, it is liens on properties owned by developers and businesses.
Cash flow and the budget crunch now vs. income later plays into this. If the Town places a lien on the property, this lien takes precedence over the mortgage. To place a lien on property, the Town pays a $75 filing fee. However, based on the quantity of liens placed, this represents half of Melody Gallant’s department’s entire budget. Once a property has a lien on it, it goes into “tax title” status, and the Town has the right to foreclose after six months.
In land court, the interest on the unpaid lien is accumulated at the rate of 16%. The foreclosure process is expensive, sometimes costing up to nearly $3,000. Melody tries to be diligent to get people on a payment plan. Of the 128 delinquent properties in Town, 26 parcels belong to resident owners, 83 parcels are developer owned, and 19 of the parcels have no known owner (this last figure seems unusual to me, and perhaps it has to do with our current housing/mortgage crisis—no one knows where all the mortgages ended up).
The bottom line is that 65% of the delinquent landowners in Westminster are developers, and there are far fewer developers than residents in Westminster. If our Treasurer/Collector was to take all cases to court, the filing fees alone would be over $65,000, and the legal costs would be over $100,000. This money would all eventually repaid when the property was foreclosed upon, since the delinquent taxpayer owes all fees and legal expenses incurred by the town, and in addition the tax bill itself is accumulating interest at 16%, but sometimes the payback period is years.
If a landowner is in bankruptcy court, the Town cannot touch that property. Estates bring on a different set of issues. Many of them are in foreclosure with the mortgage companies and banks. Ken Burstall of the Advisory Board asked about potentially allocating more money to chase delinquent taxpayers.
Melody Gallant indicated that there is a risk--the town could foreclose and own the property, but no taxes would be paid.
Peter Normandin suggested that we look into selling tax certificates. Melody’s concern was that she has a relationship with homeowners who she works with and that it would be difficult for her to sell off the receivables to a third party, who could then immediately foreclose on the property, kicking out the homeowners.
Keith Harding, of the Advisory Board, asked about going after entities rather than parcels, given that there are just 9 developers on the delinquency list, but they account for $179,204 of our delinquencies. Treasurer/Collector Melody Gallant indicated that every parcel is its own entity for foreclosure purposes. Keith further stated that there is a difference between a homeowner who we don’t want to turn out into the cold, while the developer is a business entity that took a business risk, a gamble that just didn't work out. He suggested Melody investigate the possibility of selling these receivables to a third party. No families would be put out in the cold, and the Town would have the potential benefit of land to sell or land to hold, or at a minimum collect the taxes due. My thought on this was why not foreclose on the developers ourselves—they owe more money, are more likely to have the money to pay the back taxes, and if they don’t, the town gets a good piece of land that could be sold for more than the taxes owed. That seems like a great investment to me.
UPDATE: We spoke with Melody Gallant regarding the status of liens for nonpayment of property taxes, and of selling tax certificates rather than trying to collect the money ourselves. The obvious first question was why aren’t we, the town, simply taking the developers to court, as it seems like a tremendous way to invest our money—there is virtually no risk other than a delay in getting the taxes and fees reimbursed, and the interest rate of 16% certainly beats any other risk free investment. The answer was that her department does not have the funding to do so. Last year she requested $10,000 to pursue delinquent taxpayers in court, and did not get the funding.
Since most developers would typically pay up before losing in land court, to us this seems a good way to spend the money. Once a lien in placed on a property, it is up to the town who they want to pursue, so it is certainly feasible and economical to pursue large landowners from out of town. There is a potential problem because land court is backed up with cases, but since we would collect all fees plus 16% interest, or else get the land itself with is worth much more than the taxes due, that seems like a reasonable tradeoff. Melody is also researching the idea of selling the tax certificates, as suggested by Peter Normandin and elaborated upon by Keith Harding.
Paying the Police for Overtime On Time
Things didn't get any less strange when we discussed Article #3 on the December 1st Special Town Meeting Warrant. Article #3 is a citizens’ petition presented by Sergeant Leroy Hawkins of the Westminster Police Department regarding paid police details. The kind of police detail in question is when a Westminster Police Officer works for private companies directing traffic or working at job sites. The officers are paid by the Town and the Town collects the money from the private vendors. Sergeant Hawkins indicated that Westminster Police Officers are waiting 3 to 6 months to be paid by the Town for detail work and he would like to see a cushion of $30,000 added to the account, allowing Westminster Police Officers to be paid for detail work in a timely manner.
Advisory Board member Brian Ruland asked why our officers are waiting so long to be paid. Sergeant Hawkins replied that the amount due to each officer varies from $100 to over $8,000 depending on the officer, but that the main reason, as he understood it, was that the officers are only paid when there is enough money in the account. Advisory Board members Jim Delisle and Joe Serio were concerned that a precedent would be set if we allowed managing Town budgets by citizens’ petition, such as the one submitted by Sergeant Hawkins.
Town Accountant Donna Allard indicated that outstanding receivables were $29,224.85, representing what was billed out to vendors for the details worked. According to Donna Allard there's never been a time where there was not enough money in the account to pay the police officers immediately.
She went on to say that she can only process payment requests that she has received from the police department. When contacted for comment on Monday, November 30, Donna Allard stated that she had no idea that the Police Department was holding vouchers for payment and it came as a complete shock to her that these detail invoices had not been submitted for payment.
She said that she did participate in a meeting with Town Coordinator Karen Murphy, Town Treasurer and Collector Melody Gallant and Police Chief Sam Albert on Tuesday, November 24th, the day after this Selectmen’s meeting. Melody Gallant prepared a spreadsheet for Police Department clerks to use to track entries for payment of detail work performed and receivables that relate to each detail worked.
The issue has been going on for almost 2 years. There wasn't a person in the room who disputed the fact that police officers should be paid in the pay period following working a detail, which was the one thing everyone agreed on. However, there was a big difference of opinion on whether police administration were to be submitting requests for detail pay or holding them until the account is replenished by payment from outside vendors. Donna Allard said that in the case of details worked related to the ice storm of December 2008, the Town was allowed to deficit spend, and police officers should not have seen any delay in receiving their pay for such work. Also and very importantly, Massachusetts General Law states employees must be paid within 10 days of workperformed. Residents and board members alike questioned why we have an account with $47,500 in it, yet money is not available to pay police officers after submitting their hours worked on a detail.
Police Chief Sam Albert said that officers who have worked details have been paid through August 22nd. Treasurer/Collector Melody Gallant asked Chief Albert if he had enough staff to manage the receivables. Selectman Laila Michaud asked if staff training is an issue. Chief Albert indicated that he was always led to believe that he had to wait to hold time sheets until the detail account was replenished by vendors making payments. After being told by Town Accountant Donna Allard at this Selectmen’s meeting that there is money in the account and waiting for replenishment is not an issue, Chief Albert stated that he would submit all vouchers the next day (November 24th). Jim Delisle and Ken Burstall of the Advisory Board said his number one priority is to get the officers paid, then look at the bigger picture. Selectmen asked the police and town accountant to work it out amongst themselves, insuring that the police are paid for their overtime in a timely manner, as required by law.
All requisitions for payment to police officers for overtime will be submitted by the Monday following the Thanksgiving holiday, and going forward, on a weekly basis with no holdback period. The police will then be paid within ten days, as required by Massachusetts General Law. This result leaves everyone happy, particularly the police who have waited up to six months for their overtime paychecks. We don’t have to worry about budgeting by citizens’ petition, or adding more money to the fund to pay for overtime.
UPDATE: At the Special Town Meeting the citizens' petition to increase the amount in the special fund (the money is billed and collected by the police but then turned over to the Town Treasurer and kept in a special 'fiduciary account') for paying police officers for overtime was passed over. It appears there was a miscommunication between departments. By Mass General Law overtime has to be paid in ten days, so going forward the police will be paid in a timely manner.
So far the police have submitted 99 vouchers for $37,000, covering August through November. These cover police officers who are not Westminster employees, but who worked on details in Westminster. These were processed quickly, and the town treasurer (Melody Gallant) now has the checks, to be mailed/delivered this week. Vouchers for Town police officers for the same time period total an additional $17,000, but according to the Town Accountant this is not the complete payroll.The goal is to process these by December 7th.
At this point the process seems to be working much better. Apparently the existence of this issue predates everyone currently involved, and perhaps grew out of the fact that big companies like National Grid, Verizon, or Comcast typically take at least 90 days to pay any receivables, while overtime is due in 10 days, throwing the Town's cash flow out of whack. We also get a 'bookkeeping fee' for handling the billing and collection of detail work, which contributed approximately $14,000 to the general fund last year.
I’d suggest you consider attending these meetings in the future or watching them on AWCA-TV, although not all will be this exciting.